It's apparent that no one here has studied real political science areas like voter behavior which is interdisciplinary with a good amount of psych. That's real political science. Not the theory garbage or even IR.

I'm no law school admissions professor, but as far as I know a double major in a similar field won't do you any good. Studying in Moscow for a semester sounds like a lot of fun though.

If you can, I highly recommend applying for a fulbright to do some kind of work/research/study in Russia. It will give you time to do something fun before law school and you will thank yourself later. I spent two years in Korea and I can't imagine finishing up 2L now having not had that experience I did in Korea. (In fact I plan to return in July for another year as soon as I get my June score.)

S-IV wrote:It's apparent that no one here has studied real political science areas like voter behavior which is interdisciplinary with a good amount of psych. That's real political science. Not the theory garbage or even IR.

I took intro to comparative politics which was taught by an economics professor who jerked off to game theory. Kids were buggin, it was curved to like a high 70 for an A. And stat. methods in political science another class where she gave so much extra credit on the tests I ended up with over a 100 average. Neither one of these classes were hard but they were completely different than simply cramming as much information and regurgitating it on the exam which almost all poly sci classes are.

I'm no law school admissions professor, but as far as I know a double major in a similar field won't do you any good. Studying in Moscow for a semester sounds like a lot of fun though.

If you can, I highly recommend applying for a fulbright to do some kind of work/research/study in Russia. It will give you time to do something fun before law school and you will thank yourself later. I spent two years in Korea and I can't imagine finishing up 2L now having not had that experience I did in Korea. (In fact I plan to return in July for another year as soon as I get my June score.)

Best of luck, and study abroad if you can!

Thank for the advice and about that Fullbright idea. And I didn't double major just to look good on an application. I just loved studying European history, but I also enjoyed studying political theory, and I decided to do both.

Looking at LSAT score for engineering and computer science, I'm wondering if those scores would be higher if they were representative of the population. I would conjecture that a lot of the top engineering/cs students have much better options than many of the top humanities/philosophy majors, and so the top engineering/cs students don't apply to law school in greater proportions than engineering/cs majors with fewer options.

SaintsTheMetal wrote:Isn't this kinda obvious? The average hard science student is smarter than the average lolsocialscience student.. thus slightly higher average LSAT.

lololol okay

I'm kinda baffled at how you could even question that.. The difference is quite apparent even just looking at true math majors vs math ed majors.. just not the same kind of people.. There's certainly some self selection of people with better analytic minds into the sciences.

Or you think that there is no correlation between intelligence and the LSAT?

Adm.Doppleganger wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote:Isn't this kinda obvious? The average hard science student is smarter than the average lolsocialscience student.. thus slightly higher average LSAT.

Since we're being competitive... the average hard science student sucks at writing and not being aspie.

not sure what an aspie or if that was an attack at me.. but sure, a science student will probably not be as good at creative writing (however obviously be better at technical writing.) Fortunately for everyone, the writing section on the LSAT isn't scored

SaintsTheMetal wrote:not sure what an aspie or if that was an attack at me.. but sure, a science student will probably not be as good at creative writing (however obviously be better at technical writing.) Fortunately for everyone, the writing section on the LSAT isn't scored

The bolded probably helps science students do better during law school exams. E.g. ``Of course, each major comes with its own strengths, Dean Zearfoss says. “If you’re talking just about grades, it is… basically, it is very rare at Michigan Law School, at least, to see students with science, math or engineering majors who end up at the bottom of the class. Those students always seem to do pretty well.``

SaintsTheMetal wrote:Isn't this kinda obvious? The average hard science student is smarter than the average lolsocialscience student.. thus slightly higher average LSAT.

lololol okay

I'm kinda baffled at how you could even question that.. The difference is quite apparent even just looking at true math majors vs math ed majors.. just not the same kind of people.. There's certainly some self selection of people with better analytic minds into the sciences.

Or you think that there is no correlation between intelligence and the LSAT?

Adm.Doppleganger wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote:Isn't this kinda obvious? The average hard science student is smarter than the average lolsocialscience student.. thus slightly higher average LSAT.

Since we're being competitive... the average hard science student sucks at writing and not being aspie.

not sure what an aspie or if that was an attack at me.. but sure, a science student will probably not be as good at creative writing (however obviously be better at technical writing.) Fortunately for everyone, the writing section on the LSAT isn't scored

I think the obvious compromise here is: Math and hard science majors are smarter in certain areas, liberal studies majors are smarter in others.Analytically the former have the upper hand, but abstractly I'll take the latter.

And fwiw English and History were rather easy majors at U.C. Davis, and Poli Sci was considered to have one of the hardest lower division classes at the school (just one though, it was considered a pretty easy major altogether).

And can we all have a good laugh at the expense of Communication majors?

You realize there is virtually no difference between a Poli-sci major with a concentration in political theory and philosophy in most programs, and Philosophy majors are the second highest overall scorers on the LSAT?

KevinP wrote:Looking at LSAT score for engineering and computer science, I'm wondering if those scores would be higher if they were representative of the population. I would conjecture that a lot of the top engineering/cs students have much better options than many of the top humanities/philosophy majors, and so the top engineering/cs students don't apply to law school in greater proportions than engineering/cs majors with fewer options.

I think the bigger impact on all these scores is what type of schools give out these majors. A ton of really terrible colleges(ITT Tech and trash like that) hand out a bunch of engineering degrees. They are basically trade schools.

boredatwork wrote:Anyone want to key in on the fact that poly sci has 15,000 test takers, 3 times as many as the next best represented major.

Because it's a common major available everywhere and they have no options other than law school or a PhD if you ever want to make any money.

Every pol sci major takes the LSAT, which waters down the average score. People in science majors probably prepare more for the LSAT because it's something that they made a conscious decision to make it the first step towards their career. Pol sci majors take it on a whim a lot of the time. Seriously though, where I was taking the LSAT the entire Pol sci department takes the LSAT for extra credit in a course. I mean wtf .

You realize there is virtually no difference between a Poli-sci major with a concentration in political theory and philosophy in most programs, and Philosophy majors are the second highest overall scorers on the LSAT?

I did not mention it as garbage in relation to the LSAT - I was referring to it as garbage in terms of it being part of the science since I wouldn't say there is much of a science to it at all.